No one's talking about Terry stops. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd be embarrassed right now.

Look it is a FACT: The Police can pull you over if they suspect that you might be committing a crime. PERIOD.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?!?

I THEN went on to point out that they require "probable cause" but WHAT that cause is is up to the officer at that moment.
Citizens do not get to second guess the officer on the spot. PERIOD.

If you would like to argue with the officer and deny his requests to pull over/stop/obey his orders, you will get arrested. But be my guest.

:popcorn:
I love where this is going.

But seriously, everyone's getting all riled up about a story that we all read SECOND HAND.

I read the post, got a kick out of it, and started to remember why this forum has gotten a reputation for going to shit the further I read.

All of this "all cops are pigs" bulls#*t on the first page. Please! And then all of the quoting of court cases long past. Wow!

I think both sides could be right. If the officee did pull the OP over for the stated reason then it was obviously a BS call. That being said, I have similar mods to my car and would completely UNDERSTAND if an officer pulled me over for no reason whatsoever.

Car's like this stand out and scream "Look at Me!" We bulid them to do this. You got caught, it sucks but it is what it is.

-Rant Over-

That's not true. It has to be reasonable suspicion. You cited the case law yourself. Terry requires not just suspicion, but REASONABLE suspicion. You keep mistating the law.

Cops can suspect your Benz is stolen because you're black, doesn't make it legal to detain you on that ground.

Because you're misstating law that you cited yourself. You want me to let your inaccuracies slide after you insulted my reading comprehension? Nope.


Nope, look up the probable cause test; again it's based on an objective standard, not the subjective will of the police. And when cops fuck it up, which they do frequently, judges throw out all the evidence they obtained illegally.


I never said they did, their lawyers get to second guess the cops in court and judges get to decide.

Yeah I know. That was specifically included in my advice to apollo. No one's arguing that.

You are totally missing the point.
If the police feel like pulling you over FOR ANY REASON, they WILL do so.

It does not matter if it is constitutional or not.
IF it turns out that it was NOT, then the charges are thrown out BUT YOU STILL HAD TO PULL OVER!.
THIS STEP IS PERFORMED AFTER THE FACT.

Based on your response, it seems that YOU BELIEVE that if the driver feels that the police officer SHOULD NOT have probable cause then the driver should just keep on driving.

Your logic is just plain fucked up.

So again:
Look it is a FACT: The Police can pull you over if they suspect that you might be committing a crime. PERIOD.

It MIGHT turn out that the officer was WRONG.
That does not mean that he did not have the right to investigate.

To argue otherwise means you are just trolling.

Right so by that same logic police can murder anyone they like.

^thats true. they can step in front of a car and say their life was in danger. and empty a whole clip into you.

they can pull you over for any reason, and (can)even lie about it. I got pulled over for "going a little fast" This was in a slammed car with wheels but other wise stock going from 1st to 2nd gear at 2500rpm, never passing 25mph. I refused to consent to a search. They cuffed me, threw me in the back of the squad car and searched my car and found nothing. They uncuffed me and sped off. How can you make a complaint when flashlight was in your face the whole time and you were in the back of the car and never saw any faces? They know the law better than you do, and they KNOW how to break the law better than you do.

Right but everyone understands that already. I was trying to offer insight into the legal aspect of their powers which are not well known.

And I was trying to point out the fact that: If the police suspect a person is committing (or has committed) a crime, they can stop and search/question you.

The Terry case confirms this.

Just 100% fact right there.
Only a Moron would argue with that statement


Of COURSE (as I mentioned above) what happens AFTER a stop is up to a judge and the judicial system and any charges that result from the stop MIGHT be thrown out based on the constitutionality of the stop.

DURING the stop you dont get to pull the "this is an unconstitutional stop" bullshit UNLESS you WANT a ride in a police cruiser.

And I never once said anyone should challenge the cop, I offered the exact opposite advice.

When they sped off get the licence plate of the car and a lawyer. That's why they keep doing this shit - because you just let it slide.

Yeah sure, but when they speed off when your shoes and socks are on the ground with a bunch of belongings and stuff from the trunk, am I going to leave my stuff and chase them while breaking the law(speeding, reckless driving), and give them a reason to impound me?

I guess I'm just not looking for excuses - the second you get out of the back of that cruiser you coudl've taken a look at the plates/Cruiser number or any other identifiable items. Without them even knowing. But that's just me:bonk:

easier said than done though unfortunately. give it a shot if it happens to u and let us know how it goes. lol